State Of U.P. vs Smt. Vidayawati And Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 2115 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R
 
Court No. - 26
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 758 of 1994
 

 
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Smt. Vidayawati And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- S.C.,B.D. Mandhyan,S.C. Mandhyan,Satish Mandhyan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- D.K. Singh,Ajay Kumar Sharma,Pradeep Kumar Rai,Ranjeet Saxena
 

 
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

Heard Sri M.M. Tripathi, holding brief of Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court below has committed a manifest error of law and fact to apply exemplar of very small area of land after giving merely 25% deduction on account of largeness of the area. He submits that the deduction should have been allowed at least to the tune of Rs.60%. He, therefore, submits that the compensation awarded is wholly erroneous and without consideration to the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to deduction on account of largeness of the area.

Sri Rai, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and decree and rely upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Etawah Vs. Bishan Dass and others 2005(Suppl.) RD 336.

I have carefully considered the statement of learned counsel for the parties.

Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that a notification, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated 6.8.1976 was published on 9.8.1976 for acquisition of an area 54 bighas 13 biswas and 5 dhurs, land of village Gangoh Mazabta, Distt. Saharanpur for construction of Navin Mandi Samiti in Qasba Gangoh, Distt. Saharanpur. Possession was taken on 24.9.1976. The award was made on 5.3.1983, determining compensation of two categories of land @ of Rs.6,457.83 per bigha of "Aval Aabi" quality land and Rs.3524.96 for land quality "1 Khakhi".

Khasra plot No.1872 measuring 12 bighas 9 biswas and 2 dhurs, land of Qasba Gangoh, Distt. Saharanpur belonging to the claimants-respondents was acquired. An inspection report being paper no.27-C 2 was obtained by the L.A.O. before passing the award in which it was mentioned the acquired land to be within the limits of Nagar Palika and on the main road and of very high value. The claimants-respondents have led various documentary and oral evidences before the Court below while the appellant has filed merely copy of a sale deed dated 29.12.1973 executed by one Smt. Shanti in favour of one Sri Raj Kumar. No oral evidence was led by the appellant.

The P.W.1 in his uncontroverted statement stated that the acquired land is situated in town Gangoh and is well connected with the road. Chungi no.4 of Municipal Board and Rice Mill are situated near the disputed land. He also stated that there is dense population, shops and a Bus Stand.

From the evidence considered by the court below, it is evident that acquired land in question was of high quality irrigated land. The location of land being on road and situated near Chungi, Rice Mill, dense population and shops etc. as well as the Titron Bus stand have not been disputed.

On these facts, the court below came to the conclusion that paper no.25-C, being sale deed dated 29.12.1975, executed by one Smt. Shanti in favour of one Sri Ram Kumar can not be accepted as an exemplar for reasons that the said sale deed was of unirrigated land. The court below rightly rejected the stand taken by appellant for determination of compensation on the basis of prevalent circle rate. In ground no.3 of the memorandum of appeal filed before this court the appellant has contended that 25% deduction for determination of compensation has been wrongly allowed by the court below and instead of deduction should have been 60% to 70%. Thus the appellant is not disputing the reliance placed by the court below on sale deed exemplar dated 17.4.1975 and 3.9.1975 as per which market value comes to Rs.48,000/- per bigha. The appellant disputes the deduction on account of largeness of the area. According to the appellant, 60% deduction should have been allowed on account of largeness of the area as against 25% deduction as applied by the court below for determination of market value of the acquired land in question. The court below has applied Rs.36,000/- per bigha for determination of market value of the acquired land in question while according to the appellant, as contended before this court; market value comes to Rs.19,200/- per bigha after applying deduction of 60%. Thus, it is not in dispute that the award, made by the Land Acquisition Officer, determining the market value as aforementioned was wholly erroneous.

The sale deed exemplars relied by the court below are of land close to the acquired land in question. The location of the acquired land in question has not been disputed or denied by the appellant. In the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (supra), the Division Bench reiterated the settled principles of law that fair, reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact which depends on the evidences adduced, circumstantial evidence, and probabilities arising in each case. The guiding test or the acid test could be whether a hypothetical willing vendor would offer the lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act; but not an anxious buyer dealing at arm's length with throw away price, nor facade of sale or fictitious sales brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The answer to the question has to be found out by the Court whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions.

The best evidence of the value of property are the sale transaction in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party; the time at which the property comes to be sold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration; and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out. In the absence of such a sale deed, the sale transactions relating to the neighbouring lands in the vicinity of the acquired land as well as the features of the area becomes relevant provided that the transaction represented by such a sale deed was a bona fide transaction; and the land similar to the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired; and it should possess similar advantageous features.

The facts of the present case and the findings as recorded in the impugned judgment and decree clearly indicates that the sale deed exemplars relied by the court below for determination of compensation has similar in features and location. The only point of dispute being raised by the appellant is that on account of largeness of the area of the acquired land in question, higher deduction of 60% should have been allowed in determining the market value on the basis of the exemplars sale deed relied by the claimants.

In my view, considering the facts and circumstances as well as the Division Bench judgement in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (supra) and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector and another Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others: AIR 1997 SC 2625 and Special Tehsildar , Land Acquisition Vishakpatnam Vs. A. Mangala Gowri : AIR 1992 SC 666 a deduction of 40% deduction of transaction of the area should have been made and consequently rate of Rs.28,800/- per bigha appears to be representing market value of the acquired land.

In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment dated 24.2.1989 and the decree passed by the court of 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in L.A. Case No.137 of 1988 is modified determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs.28,800/- per bigha. This determination is being done by the Court on a statement made by learned counsel for the appellant that no other Land Acquisition Reference arising from the same acquisition was made and no judgment and decree was passed except the judgment and decree impugned in the present appeal. The claimants shall be entitled all the statutory benefits as granted by the court below.

The appeal is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above.

Order Date :- 2.5.2016/vkg